Elections held in the last decades in whole
world showed that –so called – “liberal” elections did not drive -especially the emerging countries in a
right way. It is true that democracy is the best governance system that mankind
had invented so far , but still very insufficient to improve the life standards
of the citizens. When you check the yearly
ranking list of the countries in the world for the average income per capita,
the breakdown hardly change during years. Although most of countries pretend to
be managed by democracy consequently free elections and free candidature ...Nothing
change during the years and improvements are slow.
Moreover , well established advance
institutions like European Union now is open for a debate for its existence
even. Separations attempts of Catalonia in Spain, Scotland in UK , Brexit are
just the consequences of bad management systems but not the candidature.
Erdogan in Turkey , Putin in Russia , Esad in
Syria , Kim in North Korea , Rouhani in
Iran , Sisi in Egypt Netanyahu in Israel , Aliyev in Azerbaijan and many other
leaders are remaining in their seats in every new elections although you spot a
very faint progression in their country.
The rank of these countries remaining at the same level in the list of income
per capita if not worsen. The sole exception is Merkel and Germany.
If we put aside Germany , why above mentioned
countries continue to re-elect over and over these leaders while their country
does not improve ,and moreover the gap between rich countries is widening.
Famous philosopher Harari – in his new book - tried
to draw our attention to the cripple side of the democracy and free elections
and free candidature...
Is free candidature wrong? Only skillful and
experienced persons must apply as a candidate for a special governmental
position. Today Trump has proven that even
if you don’t have financial supporters or
any past experience in politics ,you
can be elected.
Another disability of the free election system
is that those who are suffering in the existing system because of lack of job ,
expensive or inadequate education system , the absence of reasonable interest
rates and long term credits for housing are not well represented.
Citizens of different wealth level have
different expectations of the government. The persons with high or medium
income do not really care much for "unemployment " especially
prevalent in the low income layer. Or mortgage availability or credit interest
rates. To lift up the low incomers section , high incomer level must do some
additional effort , also to improve the life of the lower. The example of
Trump has demonstrated that if you are
rich you can spend the money for being elected. A poor but skillful person get
lost in the system. Hence we can deduce that at the first rank low income
voters must be handled in priority. If only the requirements the poor’s are
fulfilled than we can move upward the list of different level of incomers.
You may remember about audacious declaration of
one famous actress , saying that her vote was not equal to the one ignorant shepherd
in the mountain . Indeed well educated and experienced actress may have more foresighted
view on various candidates in elections .But in fact the most needy is the
shepherd in the mountain. The rich and famous actress is not and will not be affected
from whoever win the election. Hence shepherd priority is considered.
Let us dream a country where only poor,
innocent and uneducated people can vote. Such as you put a level of wealth to
be eligible. I wonder how the situation will change.
Avram Aji
16.10.2018
